Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
What experience do you base this on? Because it's certainly not true in any bubble I've ever been in
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
I dunno, maybe I'll try again, but I hate books/series where the fans say "Oh, the first few hundred pages are mediocre but then it gets good." Any other Wuxia/progression fantasies to recommend?
Had the same experience with Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. I read the first two books and was underwhelmed. People say it gets good around book four, and my reaction is "So I have to read 2-3 crappy books before I start enjoying it?"
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Stop it, you two, they'll think the mods have a sense of humor.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
I tried Reverend Insanity, and even allowing for a rough translation, the writing was crap.
But this has been my experience with almost every progression fantasy/wuxia novel I've tried. I didn't like Cradle either. I think they're just not for me. But I don't understand how people aren't bothered by tedious exposition about Gu levels written in head-hopping inconsistent tense.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
It might seem weird that the Secret Service would not do anything in reaction to someone telling them they see a guy on the roof with a gun... but at the end of the day, it's a job for them. We all have bad days on the job when we're tired or whatever. Besides, if I my job was protecting Trump for years and having to stand around in all kinds of weather conditions listening to him ramble for hours, and someone told me that there was a reason to think Trump might be about to get shot, I can easily imagine even as an elite Secret Service operator being like "fuck who cares, I'm tired of all this shit".
I think you don't know much about the Secret Service. They are extremely dedicated to their jobs. While their reputation as elites has taken a (justifiable) hit lately, they go to great effort to recruit and train people whose job is literally to take a bullet for their charge if need be. And part of that job is, obviously, a full understanding that these people will be chosen by the political process, and it may be someone you personally don't like. This is why I find conspiracy theories about how the SS has been infiltrated by the Deep State and set up Trump to to be assassinated extremely unlikely. Incompetence and sloppiness is easier to believe than the SS not only turning into a treasonous conspiracy but deciding that letting an untrained mentally ill teen take a shot at someone. This is comic book villain plotting.
A Secret Service operator being like "fuck who cares, I'm tired of all this shit" would be someone who is having a breakdown of some kind and needs to be relieved of duty. It might have happened (they are human beings) but it would not be normal.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
So you call women who identify as men trans women, and you call men who identify as women trans men?
Okay, you do you, but most people will think you mean the opposite of what you're saying.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Your terms don't make sense, though. You're just using words in an idiosyncratic way because you think you're putting some extra fire into them, but you will actually fail to communicate what you're talking about.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Trans men are women who identify as male: the opposite of trans women.
The term you are looking for is "trans-identified male." Trans people consider "TIM" and "TIF" to be transphobic, so it probably serves the purpose you want, though it was coined by TERFs, so maybe it doesn't.
(From a moderator point of view, I would not mod TIM or TIF, but if you start calling people trannies or ranting at length about how you think they are all disgusting perverts, you're going to run afoul of the rules, because we do allow trans people to participate here and you're expected to be civil to them too, even if you really don't want to be.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Be less antagonistic. You can make your point without namecalling.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
So I disagree with you so vastly,.and have so little interest in arguing the point with you, that I struggle to formulate a response that you would not, with some justification, perceive as dismissive and condescending. Not wanting to do that, all I can I can say is that we do not see eye to eye and that's unfortunately where we are.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
So, I'm not talking about earmark at all. Try to be less stupid.
You know better than this. I've talked to you before about how you have a habit of earning AAQCs followed by posting something clearly and intentionally antagonistic. This gets you another three-day ban. You can correct people without the juvenile namecalling.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Yes, it is obnoxious to demand "Source?" when someone states an opinion. If you think they're wrong, argue the point. If someone makes a factual claim, you can politely ask for evidence, but "Democrats are corrupt" is such a general statement, anyone can throw links arguing for or against the proposition and you know it. Stop this petty sniping.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Then in all seriousness, seek help. You don't have to live like this. But we don't have to let you use this forum as a dumping ground for your drunken misanthropy.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Okay, you seem to be on some kind of spree with this comment and this one and this one. All of which seem to be testing the limits of what you can get away with. Given that the common theme is "I hate a lot of people (and fantasize about violence a lot)" paired with the obvious fact that you are a returning alt who we probably banned not long ago, and I would suggest you cool it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Well, I can't agree with any of this, but I believe you believe it.
Getting back to the original topic, do I understand you correctly that you consider anyone who does not believe this to be definitionally not a feminist?
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
However, I don't think a person having a penis or vagina is a valid reason to stop them from competing against someone with a penis or vagina in competitive sports. I think what should stop them is weight classes, a principle I understand to already be understood in wrestling, and that has nothing to do with being a woman or man.
Like, I'm sorry, if you want to insist men and women are exactly the same except for plumbing, I probably can't convince you otherwise, but the evidence is overwhelming that this is not the case. A man will almost always absolutely dominate a woman in the same weight class in every sport, if they have even remotely comparable levels of training.
And I don't think there's a problem housing them together for the same reason. Women beat the shit out of eachother in prison just as much as men do
For this I don't have a quick link to dispute the assertion, but I am extremely doubtful of this and wonder if you have any evidence besides that one episode of Orange is the New Black? I have read enough stories recently of convicted male sex offenders who conveniently announced their new gender identity and desire to be housed in a women's facility (frequently taking absolutely no steps to "transition" beyond maybe wearing a wig), as well as trans women who have assaulted female inmates in prison, that I think there are pretty good reasons not to incarcerate penis-havers with women, even if some of them might be sincere about their gender identification. I hate to use that word again, but you seem shockingly naive to just take at face value a convicted rapist's assertion that he's now a woman house him with women please?
house a buff woman with a scrawny man together and I'd see the same result if you reversed the weight class.
You might be surprised just how much you'd have to skew that scenario to give the woman even odds. Like, yes, if he's a sickly 98-pound weakling who's never thrown a punch in his life up against 200-pound Berthilda the Gang-Banger, sure, she might be able to whup him. But otherwise? Not likely.
I dunno, I see a whole lot more of "trans women are freaks in the head for being trans, trans women are clearly much uglier being trans and therefore must hate themselves, trans women are just horny men who want to peep at women pissing in the bathroom, trans women want to convince your kid they're trans to mutilate themselves because deep down they're insecure, xyz" than "trans women are unfairly advantaged in sports and trans women pose a safety threat to their fellow inmates".
This is probably true, but the fact that many people are motivated primarily by disgust or moral condemnation does not make the very real physical concerns invalid.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
People are allowed to have a sense of humor. If I believed @justawoman is literally here just to harvest downvotes, I'd agree she's trolling, but I think she's aware that she gets heavily downvoted every time she posts because of her opinions, and she's making light of it. I think you are aware of this too.
You also lose a great deal of credibility because you say this about basically every leftist poster.
Someone who's literally just here to say provocative things and snicker that people were provoked acts differently.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
I just feel like if I said something along the lines of “I think you’re being obtuse/pedantic/ignorant/childish/naive about this topic” to someone on here I’d be justifiably moderated, so it’s tough to feel like I’m getting dealt a lot of “you’re a troll, you don’t really believe these things”. But, as I said, the moderation on this site is not for me. I don’t want to bring it up a lot.
There's a difference between "I think you're being naive" (there are a lot of ways to say "You're wrong" and most of them are allowable) and "You're a troll" (which I just modded someone for saying!).
As @FCfromSSC said, framing is very important here. If you are upset at being called naive, well, noted, but no, I would not normally mod someone for calling another poster naive. To me, that does not register as an insult like "stupid" or "liar" or "troll."
I’d retort to Mr. TERF that if gender roles are social construct as we agree they are, then there’s nothing wrong with a Western socially-construct man decided he wants to be a Western socially-constructed woman, because it’s all arbitrary in the end.
Okay, are we having the trans debate again? What if Mr. TERF says gender roles are socially constructed, but penises, vaginas, upper body strength and size are not? And therefore people with penises should not compete against people with vaginas in competitive sports, or be housed with them in prison, and sex crimes committed by people with penises should not be statistically grouped with sex crimes committed by people with vaginas such that we see headlines like "Woman convicted of raping toddler" when the "woman" in question is a person with a penis? Because that is the TERF argument in a nutshell. Not "Men shouldn't be allowed to wear dresses and call themselves she/her."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Enough of this.
The fact that someone is a lefty feminist does not make them a troll.
If you have a specific, articulable reason to believe that @justawoman is a troll (meaning not "someone with opinions I don't like" but an actual sockpuppet, or someone roleplaying a lefty feminist for the lols), then tell us what it is when you report her.
Otherwise, you will stop calling people trolls just because you don't like their presence here and you will stop slinging shit at us because we won't ban the people whose presence you don't like here.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
I think you are finally out of the new user filter now.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
To be clear, my statement regarding the fact that you are naive or insincere concerned specifically your claim that "feminism is feminism" and that you don't consider there to be divisions or different schools of thought within them. You may genuinely believe that, but it's so obvious that these divisions do exist (and that other feminists are very aware of them) that it just seems kind of silly to claim you are following the One True Feminism and everyone else is either also on the same team as youor they've got it wrong.
I highly doubt JK Rowling and I are on the same page about every single issue except trans women. She probably doesn’t agree gender roles are a social construct, since she’s a TERF.
... Have you ever actually talked to a TERF?
They very much do believe that gender roles are social constructs. That is their primary objection to men claiming to be women! They consider sex to be a biological reality, and gender roles to be social constructs, and from their point of view, trans women willingly adopt, play act and reify gender roles while claiming that they are based on some innate property. It's trans women who claim that wearing a skirt makes you a woman, and being a woman makes you want to wear a skirt.
She also likes to deadname trans women on Twitter
Even if this is true, while I'm perfectly willing to have the Rowling debate again, it's irrelevant to whether or not she's a feminist, unless you think being a bad person (according to your ethics) means someone can't be a feminist.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
Well, I don’t appreciate being insulted by being called naive
Well, the alternative is believing you're just being disingenuous, which is more insulting imo.
You seem to define a lot of things according to how you personally feel about them. JK Rowling definitely considers herself a feminist, and on every single issue except trans women, she is probably on the same page as you. Yet you feel comfortable asserting that she is not a feminist because you are a third wave postmodernist feminist.
My opinion is that you are in fact a woman because you have "titties and estrogen" and that woman is not purely a social construct. You can disagree, and maybe there is some way you could prove me wrong, though I doubt it. But it doesn't mean I cease to consider you a person.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
5mo ago
I think you are being a little naive here. Not disingenuous, but you are presenting something of a straw man. You're basically making the Marie Shear argument: "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Now to steelman this, I know what feminists would say is "Duh, we know anti-feminists don't think we're literally not human, we mean they don't treat us as people like themselves with agency and full equal rights." Which would be fair enough, but if you look around (even in a place like the Motte with no shortage of anti-feminists), you will find very few people who think women aren't "people." Yes, we do have a few posters who literally do think women are p-zombies or should be property, but they are a minority.
The people here who oppose feminism are mostly not tradcons who want to repeal the 19th (though there are some of those too). They are people who have grievances with feminism as it manifests today, particularly third wave or "intersectional" feminism. Such "currently-not-widely-adopted" feminist philosophies would be things like #BelieveWomen, which is a classic case of motte-and-bailey, the Motte being "take women's claims of being harassed or assaulted seriously and don't assume they're making it up," the bailey being "Believe any woman uncritically and never express doubt about a rape story," even if it doesn't pass the sniff test.
Intersectional feminism is what also brought us trans ideology, which got many previously feminist women terfed out. JK Rowling, unambiguously a committed feminist, is now called a fascist and worst by many modern feminists, simply because she doesn't agree that trans women are women.
I try to be sympathetic to feminist arguments, because I do in fact believe women are people, but very much of modern feminist writing seems to fall within the stereotype often described here of women wanting all the privileges, none of the responsibility. The memes are kind of mean, but they also aren't... wrong. (I note that the linked article makes an earnest argument that "AKSHUALLY the problem is when men flirt and it's unreciprocated!" Which entirely misses the point.) I think of people like Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valente, who were vanguards of modern third wave feminism and are some of the most bad faith writers I've ever had the misfortune of once taking seriously. They are practically memes themselves, with zero self-awareness.
Saying "feminism is feminism" and you don't split it into "waves" is kind of like a Christian saying he doesn't split Christianity into denominations. Well, great, you can say "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship with God" all you want, but it is, in fact, a religion, and people ostracize, cancel, and even kill each other over denominational differences. I don't know if I can think of examples of feminists literally killing each other over sectarian differences, but as JK Rowling would point out, they most certainly care about them even if you claim they don't exist.
Kind of. David Foster Wallace is considered "dude lit" (which is bad) and he was a complicated genius dude who didn't fit neatly into any ideological box but was not visibly pro-feminist, which means promoting him as an Important Writer is bad. Plus reading a complicated and notoriously difficult 1000-page novel is very male-coded (thus, bad). Basically, it appeals to the sort of nerdy, intellectual dude who might not be woke - hence, a "red flag "
(Disclaimer: I have not read Infinite Jest. I read one of DFW's other books and just didn't like it much.)
More options
Context Copy link